campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Campaigns Wikia talk:Impartial Category Policy
Areas that need work *Areas of this proposal are too open to interpretation. Relative terms are used without providing a frame of reference to which they should be compared. **"widely-accepted": how widely? widely accepted among what group? **"large number": how large? **"small number": how small? This could be interpreted by one person as a larger number than someone else's interpretation of "large number". *This proposal contradicts most of the others. **This policy would have category disputes decided among admins instead of by a general vote, contradicting Three-revert rule ***This would also give admins content privileges, contradicting Protected page guidelines. **This policy would restrict categories to widely-held POVs, contradicting Allow Points of View, All Points of View, and Single Point of View. **This is a counter-proposal to Category policy, and as such is obviously incompatible. --whosawhatsis? 06:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC) ::I don't agree that there are "areas that need work". The proposal was worded this way deliberately. ::This proposal is an alternative to the "Category policy" proposal. I see the "Category policy" and this "Impartial Category Policy" as mutually exclusive; we should adopt one or the other but not both. For that reason, I grouped this proposal next to the "Category proposal" on the "Campaigns Wikia:Policy" http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Campaigns_Wikia:Policy#Unscheduled page. :::Up until now, the proposals have been ordered by date proposed, but if you're going to be insistent, I'm not going to fight you about something so petty. --whosawhatsis? 18:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC) ::::What is it about grouping like proposals together that you find "petty"? Lou franklin 19:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC) :::::It's petty that you want to give your proposal a higher place on the list than the existing practices would dictate. --whosawhatsis? 20:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC) ::::::Oh, please. Why don't you just criticize every keystoke? I couldn't care less whether my proposal has "a higher place on the list". Go ahead and move both related proposals down to the bottom if this distresses you so. That way my proposal will be at the bottom and you can get a good night's sleep. God forbid we go against "existing practices" and group like items together. Lou franklin 20:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC) :::::::That would be just as bad, but like I said, I'm not going to fight about it, so let it go. --whosawhatsis? 20:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC) ::::::::You brought it up. It seems it is you who should "let it go". Lou franklin 20:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC) ::This proposal does not "contradict most of the others". The Three-revert rule, if adopted, would still be in place but not for the purposes of categorizing articles. The Protected page guidelines proposal is unrelated - It deals with "editing a protected page". :::It does contradict the policies listed. It, at best, creates an exception to 3rr, and although not directly related, it directly contradicts the clause in PPG that says that admins don't have content privileges, and in the case of an edit war on categories (which is sadly not unprecedented here) and the page had to be protected, the two policies would come into direct conflict. --whosawhatsis? 18:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC) ::::How? Lou franklin 19:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC) :::::If the page has to be protected due to a dispute about the category, this policy would dictate that an admin would choose which version to put on the page before protecting it, which directly conflicts with PPG. --whosawhatsis? 20:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC) ::::::I don't understand that comment at all. This policy would not dictate that an admin must protect the page. This policy would empower an admin to use his head. Admins could agree to remove all controversial categories until the dispute was resolved. ::::::If an admin ever were to choose to protect a page due to a category dispute, the rules of engagement would be the same as they are now. An admin is not allowed to protect a page in order to promote his own POV. Where is the "direct conflict with PPG"? Lou franklin 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC) :::::::The admin would have to come to a final decision, and if someone continues to act against that decision, the admin would have to revert it and protect the page to keep that person from continuing to do so. An admin protecting a page to keep his own decision from being reverted would be exercising content privileges. This is different from application of 3rr because the decision being protected is a community consensus, not a unilateral decision. --whosawhatsis? 20:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC) ::::::::Why would "the admin have to revert it and protect the page"? Why wouldn't they revert it and block the user? ::::::::I don't understand your position. If somebody types in a bunch of swears on a page, it will be reverted. That is "exercising content privileges" too. So what? Lou franklin 02:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC) ::There are lots of places that users can "express their viewpoints". Categories should not be one of them. Categories should be non-controversial. Categories are different from content. The Allow Points of View, All Points of View, and Single Point of View proposals should apply to content, not categories. ::This proposal is "open to interpretation" for a reason. Admins should be allowed to use their heads. Rather than spending a lot of time having the entire community vote on category placement, why not have an admin make a quick decision and move on? ::An admin recently made this comment regarding a category dispute: "We've wasted far too much time discussing this ultimately small detail; we should focus on making the site presentable to visitors". It will be quicker and less work for everybody involved if an admin just makes a quick decision about whether a topic is widely-accepted as belonging to a category or not. In most cases it will be a no-brainer. Lou franklin 13:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC) :::Because admins are not "In Charge" of the content of this site. We are responsible for the infrastructure, and accountable to the policies that the active users approve. That's a core philosophical difference, isn't it. Conservative thought places people with power in the position of using that power to further an end, and puts those people "above" everyone else. Liberal thought places people with power in the role of liberator, required to use that power for the common good. As a liberal, I want to provide a venue for all people and all points of view, including those that I disagree with, and including points of view from people who say that the POV of someone else is wrong and should be silenced. I may shake my head in disagreement, voice my opinion and articulate my values all I want. But I can't use my ability to roll back changes or block people without following transparent and community approved rules. I can't 'just make a quick decision' that others would disagree with, because it would mean that I was abusing my extra abilities for nothing but an ego trip. :::Categories are obviously part of the content. If they weren't, they wouldn't be generating so much discussion. Chadlupkes 14:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC) ::::I agree with Chad, for the most part. Admins can't unilaterally decide things and then prevent anyone else from changing that. It's against the whole Wiki philosophy. However, admins should be able to act quickly in case of major problems even if there is not an applicable policy for it, but then the admins would have to be subject to consensus approval of the action. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 14:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC) :::::Having the ability to act quickly and be subject to consensus approval is at the very heart of this proposal. :::::As it stands now, admins are "unilaterally deciding things and then preventing anyone else from changing that". Admins are "'In Charge' of the content of this site". Admins are "'above' everyone else". :::::When homosexual "marriage" was miscategorized under "civil rights" I removed it from the category. As a result the admins blocked me and reverted my changes. :::::That is "unilaterally deciding things and then preventing anyone else from changing that". That does put admins "In Charge' of the content of this site", whether they realize it or not. :::::Your "liberal thought" has not "placed people with power in the role of liberator". You have not "provided a venue for all people and all points of view". You have said that "the POV of someone else is wrong and should be silenced" - and you willfully silenced it. :::::You have "'just made a quick decision' that others would disagree with" and whether that means that you were "abusing your extra abilities for nothing but an ego trip" is left as an exercise for the reader. :::::Categories should not be considered "part of the content". There are ample opportunities to editorialize here. To allow the placement of "George W. Bush" under the category of "Evil Dictators" cheapens the site. Lou franklin 15:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC) ::::::At a first glance, this policy seems to be a simple vote, which is what was done for same-sex marriage. The category was widely accepted, so it was placed. ::::::I strongly oppose the idea of admins voting among themselves. Admininstrators are not and will not become any sort of elite. ::::::Categories are part of the content, as they place a label on the articles. Hopefully they will be neutral enough to not be the center of debate. ::::::"When homosexual "marriage" was miscategorized under "civil rights" I removed it from the category. As a result the admins blocked me and reverted my changes." That is an understatement. At first, you removed it, then someone else replaced it, back and forth a few times. We called for a vote and announced that the result would be enforced. The vote decided to keep the category. You ignored the vote and removed the category. You were warned but you insisted. Only then were you blocked. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC) ::::That is the point of this proposal. "Voting" doesn't produce a fair outcome when 90% of the community sees things from the same liberal lens. If the community accurately represented society, than a "vote" would produce a fair outcome. But that is clearly not the case here. ::::In order to have some semblance of a balanced site, somebody needs to make a decision about what category would be widely-accepted by society as a whole. Staging a "vote" within this community produces nothing but an unbalanced site. A vote here determines only what is acceptable within a small liberal segment of society. ::::Clearly admins already are the "elite". They already have the ability to control content by reverting text and blocking users who change that content. To pretend that users and admins have the same abilities is just silly. ::::To say that "Categories are part of the content, as they place a label on the articles" doesn't address the issue. Everybody here knows what the term "category" means. The issue is whether the categories selected should be neutral or biased. ::::There is a "pro" and "con" section of the homosexual "marriage" article where it is appropriate to editorialize. Readers expect opinions there because those sections are labeled "pro" and "con". Editorializing should not be allowed in the "background" section nor when selecting a category. Those sections are different because they are not labeled in a way that lets the reader know that what he is reading is biased. ::::The categories so far have not been "neutral enough to not be the center of debate". Not even close. Look at some of the things that are categorized under "civil rights": abortion?! homosexual "marriage"?! You’ve got to be joking. ::::Categorizing homosexual "marriage" under "civil rights" when millions of people object to it is an outrage. But under the current policies there is no way to correct it. You cannot achieve "the goal of bringing together people from diverse political perspectives" without fair policies. What you will achieve with the current policies is what you have now: A bunch of leftists who all see things the same way, and a homogenous and feeble site. Lou franklin 19:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC) :::OK, I'm going to try a different approach here. Instead of refuting the parts I don't agree with, I'm going to show you where I agree with you, and we'll see where we can go from there. :::I agree that voting doesn't produce a fair result in a community that has a majority of one opinion. However, that critique applies to democracy (maybe suffrage, to be more specific) in general. There will always be a minority that gets shunted. I'm not making a moral judgement, but it's inevitable. The definition of voting implies opressing the minority. You have proposed that the admins use their heads to make a quick decision that is fair. Theoretically, it sounds better, but the problem is, what happens when the admins decision is not fair? What you get there is a dictator. It seems that both ways have flaws, but at least with voting the flaw will tend to diminish, as the community grows and diversifies. :::I strongly agree that categories should be neutral. The problem is that it might be impossible to find truly neutral categories, and all articles might end up in the Controversies category. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 21:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC) ::::In deference to you, I will also try a different approach. The homosexual "marriage" article has been miscategorized under "civil rights". That needs to be corrected. The question is "how?" ::::I have produced dozens of links showing how much opposition there is to classifying homosexual "marriage" as a civil rights issue. Not only is the topic inaccurate, it is deeply offensive to many African-Americans, Christians, and many others (myself included). Even Vive, the lesbian who commented on the talk page, acknowledges that the topic is inappropriate. You, yourself indicated that categories should be neutral and that you would vote for the removal of the category. Frankly, it's a bit hard to understand how a fair-minded community could oppose the removal of the category. It is clearly the fair course of action to take. ::::So without discussing the merits of this proposal - you tell me - how will the category be removed? We know that voting doesn't work because the community is partisan. So what would? Is there any way to get the community to make a fair decision? If so, what is it? Lou franklin 01:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC) :::::Well, I have to say I like this way of debating much, much more. I think the best way to remove the category is the following: :::::We'll reopen the vote; you'll propose the reopening, I'll second you. :::::We'll give an argument for doing so. I think it should look something like this: :::::We believe the categories should not be a cause for debate and they should remain as neutral as possible. This implies not categorizing articles in a way that would cause rejection by any groups (minority or otherwise). We invite the community to vote for the removal, as it has created more problems than solutions. This won't affect the treating of the issue, as the article has a pro section and a con section, and all sides can express their views in the appropriate section. We understand that many people consider it a civil rights issue, but there are also people who don't consider it as such. In conclusion, we believe the article can be placed under categories like Controversies and Proposed legislation, which we can all agree on. The debate on whether it is a civil rights issue or not should take place in the article, not with the categories. :::::What do you think, Lou? I don't see a way that doesn't involve voting, but I think you'll find that, with a bit of courteousness, the liberal population of this site will agree to remove it. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 04:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC) :Of course we can agree that there are inappropriate and even offensive categorizations. Equally there is inappropriate and even offensive content. Indeed, content may be defamatory, hate literature, etc. :The difficulty in both categorization and content is a problem arising from allowing anyone to post their views to an on-line community. In other words, these problems go to the nature of a Wikia. Where do we draw the line? Surely a long diatribe filled with rascist statements is at least as problematic than a hate-filled category title. :I don't know how to address these issues. Censorship (by a majority, by a minority or by an administrator) is antithetical to the idea of the Wikia. And that is what you are proposing. But at the same time, there are times that either a category or content may be deeply offensive. I think that perhaps there should be a mechanism for extreme cases. However, the mere fact that significant controversy exists should not be enough. People participating in the Wikia and discussing controversial issues must learn to put up with categories that they may personally disagree with. I don't see any alternative - to rely upon censorship by either the majority or minority will undermine the discussion entirely.--singingwithin 21:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC) ::It has already been established that you approve of "relying upon censorship". You yourself said that "there should be a mechanism for extreme cases". The only question is "what is an extreme case?" Are things that you consider extreme more important than things that I'' consider extreme? Why not say that if ''any large group considers a category extreme we should remove it? What could be more fair than that? ::And, by the way, I am not proposing "censorship". Anybody can say anything they want, but they should do it in the appropriate place. The article is the appropriate place (especially the "pro" or "con" section of the article). Categories are for grouping like articles; they are not the appropriate place to editorialize. Lou franklin 04:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC) :::I don't think I said that I approved of relying upon censorship - I mused that perhaps it was necessary for the reasons that you have identified. I'm reluctantly drawn to that conclusion at least on a public forum like a wikia because of the legal consequences of defamation and hate literature, and because of the effect that hate literature can have on free debate. I'd love to come up with another solution, but haven't heard one yet. :::I think you are proposing censorship. Advocates of SSM really do see SSM as being "like" the battle for racial equality rights and other civil rights issues. While there are certainly assumptions implicit in that claim, this categorisation is a description, not some conscious attempt to propagandize as you seem to believe. You can disagree - but you're not merely disagreeing, but demanding that the categories be written in a way that censors this view of the world. :::And by the way, a "controversies" category tells us nothing about the likeness between issues in that category, whereas including SSM in a civil rights category tells us both about relationships that some see and also that the issue is about what the rights of citizens should or should not be.singingwithin 7:21am, 30 September 2006 (PST) ::::The category is not "relationships that some see as related to civil rights". The category is civil rights. ::::I am not proposing censorship. I am proposing that we editorialize in sections that are labeled as opinions. You can express any opinion that you want in the appropriate place. Howard Stern has the right to say anything he wants, but he can't say it in a kindergarten classroom. It is not censorship. He is free to express himself as long as he does so in the appropriate forum. Lou franklin 15:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)